Subject: RE: Reminder: Deadline for input on sub-ip discussion

From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 15:25:17 +0100

John writes:
.. snip ..

> Once we dispose of "make it permanent", then we have more
> flexibility about answers.   What should we do?  Well, for
> starters and to be very blunt, I'm concerned about the
> implicatons of an eight day review starting on 4 December.  The
> IESG has known for two years that this point was coming.  An
> area meeting was held in Atlanta, but there was no notice to the
> general community  that this was going to be a major topic, no
> strong mention of it at the plenary or pre-Atlanta mailings to
> the whole IETF, etc.  I have to consider that a symptom of a
> more general problem.

speaking as one of the (current) ADs of the subIP area.
We really believed that the subip area would accept that the area
would be closed down (as was agreed 2 years ago at the start) and
that the discussion would be more about into which areas each
remaining WG would move. We did announce that the future of subip
was on the agenda as per:

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Scott Bradner [mailto:[email-masked]]
    Sent: donderdag 14 november 2002 15:14
    To: [email-masked]
    Cc: [email-masked]
    Subject: SUB-IP meeting agenda

    1/ area status	ADs					15
       chairs

    2/ options for the future of the area  ADs		15

    3/ open discussion    all				30

I admit that this was a bit late. 

We found out at the meeting that the vast majority wanted to keep
the area. But to say the least... I was suprised. I will let Scott
speak for himself.

I think Harald also explained why we are in such a hurry.
We have our IESG telechat this Thursday and we want to try to
formulate an IESG view of the future of the subIP area and
pass that on to the nomcom. They should have it rather sooner
than later.

In hindsight... yes we should have started this discussion earlier.

Hope the explanation helps.
Thanks for the input
Bert

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 10:29:05 -0500

Bert,

The explanation helps.   Most of my comments were in hindsight
and I didn't intend to cast any blame on you (or Scott) for
being surprised.  And, given the situation in which you found
yourselves, and the IESG generally, after Atlanta, I think the
way this is being handled is probably among the better solutions
possible.  I certainly applaud it if the alternative is that the
IESG go off in secret and make a decision with no broad
community input -- and I assume that, given the time
constraints, that _was_ the alternative.

But, in hindsight,...

(i) I don't like these sorts of surprises that leave little time
to think about an important issue.  I don't think anyone does.
I think all of us who have been around the industry for a while
understand that they happen.  But, when they happen regularly, I
begin to wonder about the management processes that seem to be
unable to prevent them.  That is a general problem if it is a
problem at all, the Sub-IP area issues may or may not be an
example or symptom.

(ii) This is either an issue that was important enough to
discuss with the community or it isn't.  If it is, then it
should have been mentioned at the plenary and called to the
attention of the IETF community as other than an item on a
WG/area agenda.  Even if you thought it wasn't an issue until
after the [sub]area meeting, there should have been opportunity
to bring it up at the plenary and to get an announcement out to
IETF-Announce during that week indicating it was an issue the
community needed to think about.  If that didn't happen because
you folks are all just too overloaded, then that reinforces the
need for some effort to change the level or nature of the load.

     regards,
       john

--On Tuesday, 10 December, 2002 15:25 +0100 "Wijnen, Bert
(Bert)" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> implicatons of an eight day review starting on 4 December.
>> The IESG has known for two years that this point was coming.
>> An area meeting was held in Atlanta, but there was no notice
>> to the general community  that this was going to be a major
>> topic, no strong mention of it at the plenary or pre-Atlanta
>> mailings to the whole IETF, etc.  I have to consider that a
>> symptom of a more general problem.
> 
> We really believed that the subip area would accept that the
> area would be closed down (as was agreed 2 years ago at the
> start) and that the discussion would be more about into which
> areas each remaining WG would move. We did announce that the
> future of subip was on the agenda as per:
> 
> We found out at the meeting that the vast majority wanted to
> keep the area. But to say the least... I was suprised. I will
> let Scott speak for himself.
>

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 07:58:09 -0800

> to think about an important issue.

none of us do.  which is why all the folk who are involved in the
sub-ip area have been discussing this for a while, culminating in a
general discussion in the sub-ip area meeting in atlanta.  what
you, as someone not involved in or tracking sub-ip, have seen is
kind of an ietf-wide last call on the issue, as some of use felt
that open input from the entire ietf would be useful when dealing
with issues of something as large as an area.  dunno about the
other ads and sub-ip folk, but i have found the ietf-wide input on
the sub-ip area issue useful.

randy

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 11:05:57 -0500

> the area. But to say the least... I was suprised. 

This doesn't surprise me.  Nearly every working group wishes to perpetuate
itself indefinitely, long after its charter goals have been met (and often
grossly exceeded).  People who are concentrating on a particular problem 
inevitably tend to see other interesting problems related to the first one.
That doesn't mean it's in the IETF's interest for that group to continue 
to exist.

I suspect the same dynamics apply to an area - people working in that area
naturally value their work, and are afraid that IETF will not support 
additional work of that kind if the area goes away.

My recommendation is to disband the current sub-ip area as originally planned.
It might be that a new area with similar focus should be created soon.
But the current area was expressly designed to be limited in duration, and
perpetuating it would probably be a mistake.  By shutting down the current area
it would be possible to "start over" with a clean slate - to carefully consider
whether a new area is appropriate, and if so, whether its focus should be changed
from that of the prototype sub-ip area. 

Keith